Lean Flow Technology Scorecard

SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :

0.0
A LEADERSHIP
0 A.1 MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
Management is not aware of Lean concepts nor is it interested in adopting the Lean philosophy.
Management is aware of the Lean movement, is interested, but needs more info before making a commitment.
Management is educated in Lean concepts and has made a decision to adopt the philosophy but has not set a formal process in place.
Management is well versed in Lean, has developed a formal implementation team, and has assigned a person the responsibility for the Lean conversion.
Lean is established as the way the company conducts its business.
0 A.2 CULTURE
No attempt has been made to address culture.
The need to address cultural change has been recognized and plans/tactics are being developed.
A cultural change process has begun. Communication forums have been established. The need to change has been identified and communicated to the workforce. Floor level “change leaders” have been
identified and are being educated on the need to change and how to effect change.
Cultural change is apparent. “What’s In It For Me” (WIIFM) has been addressed at all levels and is understood and accepted. Successes are recognized and rewarded accordingly.
A continuous improvement culture exists. Employees recognize CI opportunities and enact positive change at all levels voluntarily and without management urging. Employees understand their level of
empowerment to implement change.
0 A.3 INFRASTRUCTURE
No Lean infrastructure.
Strategy in development. The need to address infrastructure is recognized and has been communicated, but infrastructure has not been planned or implemented.
Strategy formalized. Infrastructure in development. Key personnel identified, company-level and process-level Champions have stepped forward.
Infrastructure in place. Facilitators, team leads, training, and methods and tools developed.
Infrastructure fully developed and actively implementing change.

B TRANSPARENCY
0 B.1 VALUE STREAM MAPPING - PRODUCT SYNCHRONIZATION
No processes have been mapped.
Process mapping is accomplished informally and not as a matter of record. Not used as a continuous improvement tool.
Process is mapped and defined only after problems arise. Mapping is not used as a continuous improvement method.
Teams established to map and improve the processes. Not all value streams have been mapped. Value stream maps are an integral component of the continuous improvement plan.
All processes have been mapped. Value stream maps are used to identify areas for improvement and are tied to the “master” continuous improvement plan.
0 B.2 VISUAL ORDER - 5's PROGRAM
No formal 5S activities conducted. Daily end-of-shift cleaning may occur but difficult for anyone to tell what goes where.
Thorough, non-routine cleaning and sorting occurs but not on a formal program basis. Difficult for visitors to tell what goes where, but workers know.
Thorough cleanings are scheduled and performed. Causes of excessive dirt and contamination are identified and root causes investigated.
A place for everything and everything in its place. Daily cleanings are performed (sort, straighten, shine, safety) with root causes of dirt and contamination identified and solutions developed.
5S is a part of regular duties. The process is documented, solutions to root causes of dirt and contamination are implemented and verified, and improvements in execution over the past 12 months are
exhibited.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 1 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
0 B.3 VISUAL CONTROL - PROGRESS / STATUS
No visual controls in place. Supervision can’t tell visually when an abnormality is occurring.
Some charts and communication posted when available, updated irregularly. Data is not current or being used to manage the work area.
Some visual control techniques utilized. Supervisors can tell when the work area is not running properly.
Real time status of performance is evident. Anyone can tell when an abnormality occurs. Visual tools such as flow charts, diagrams, and key indicators are used to make daily work decisions.
Cell organization responds immediately to any visual control exceptions. Limits are identified to alert workers long before customer requirements are compromised. Visual controls are clear and can be
easily understood when walking by without breaking stride.

C LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

0 C.1 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE / ASSEMBLY - DFM/A
Product designed in engineering silos. No input from outside other than customer identified performance requirements.
Customer and suppliers involved in some designs. Some use of common platforms.
Customer and supplier involved in all applicable designs. Supplier partnerships developed. Assembly and manufacturing have input only after product design.
Suppliers, customers, manufacturing, assembly, are all part of design team. Concurrent or simultaneous engineering utilized.
Automated systems in place to support DFM/A (e.g. computerized programs for identifying qualified common components, assigning scores to products as a function of ease of assembly, etc) and ensure
redundancies and inefficiencies in design and assembly are eliminated. Older, in-production products have been re-designed for ease of manufacture and assembly.
0 C.2 FLATTENED BILL OF MATERIAL
No effort has been made to reduce Bill of Material layers.
Some Bill of Material reduction efforts under way, but are incorporated after the design process. (i.e., production/supplier request to build at a higher assembly level)
Coordination occurs between engineering functions to eliminate redundant part design and facilitate common parts usage. Manufacturing/supplier included only after design is complete.
Full coordination between engineering groups, manufacturing, manufacturing engineering, etc. in an effort to produce at the highest possible level.
Sub-tier suppliers are included during design to identify components that are capable and already in production, readily available, common across other platforms, etc.

0 C.3 MISCELLANEOUS METHODS

Design methods are focused on product performance only with an emphasis on not exceeding budget. Little or no regard is given to improving overall cost and development time.
Still product performance driven, but some regard is given to developing at “less than budgeted” and improving deadline performance. Little focus on sub-processes and cost to manufacture or support.
Product of
Certain performance is thehave
the above tools driver, butidentified
been a focusedand
effort
areisan
made to reduce
integral part oftime of development
the development and overall
process. Whilecost
costvia the use
targets andofdeadlines
one, or some, of the above
are established, mentioned
the methods.
focus is on exceeding those targets, not on
meeting them.
Low cost development and first-to-market are key drivers of the product development process. Many of the above methods, or others not identified, are utilized as applicable. Incentives for beating targets
are often, if not always, identified.

D PROCESS FOCUS
0 D.1 CONTINUOUS FLOW
Job shop layout. Large queue times, backlogs, and WIP inventory. Each person performs the task “his or her own best way”.
Some product flow has been analyzed but no flow has been implemented. Takt time is either unknown or not used. Best method of manufacture is identified but not standardized.
Flow is implemented in some areas but is not continuous. Queues and WIP buffers still exist. Takt time is not utilized to pace the process. Standard work implemented in some areas.
Continuous flow utilized in trial areas. In the trial areas production pace is set to takt time. Standard work is implemented across many areas.
Entire factory organized around continuous flow with no queues (other than those required by standard WIP calculations). Takt time is known and utilized to pace production. Standard work implemented
throughout the enterprise.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 2 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
0 D.2 MATERIAL PRESENTATION
No system of parts presentation in place. Parts delivered in bulk and must be sorted through by operator or operator pulls own parts.
Parts presented in kits but not organized around order-of-use and the parts are not identified in a readily visible manner. Common use items stored in bins common to many work areas. Operators
responsible for identifying/selecting the proper items from these common bins.
Parts presented in organized kits, visibly identified by part number. Common stock kept at worker locations utilizing some type of bin system for replenishment.
Parts presented on work stations, in individual boxes organized around color-coding or some other easily distinguishable method of identification. Bin system in place at operator level for common use
items. Non replenishable kanban can be use.
Parts presented on work stations organized around order-of-use and color coded, etc. Templates or shadow board kits used for common use items, preventing pulling of wrong parts.

0 D.3 CELLULAR / MIXED-MODEL MANUFACTURING

Job shop layout. Machine orientation is based on process similarity.
Machines arranged by families of product but not in cellular fashion. Queues and/or large WIP levels exist.
Trial cell implemented. Queues within the cell are eliminated and production is paced to takt time.
Trial cell implemented. Multi-skilled workers are placed in the cell. All supporting functions are within the cell and a team approach is utilized. Multi-machine workers operating where takt allows.
Full cell or mixed-model line implementation across the factory. Cells are synchronized to feed next level cells at the proper time, eliminating WIP between processes.
0 D.4 RIGHT-SIZED EQUIPMENT
“Monument” operations emphasizing localized units per labor hour.
Process-oriented machinery, independently focused on speed and high volume. Little to no quick-change capability.
“Off the shelf” equipment with unused features but emphasizing quick changeover capability. Hard to move and share between cells.
Dedicated to cell. Appropriate size and speed. No pits or platforms. Easily moved. Machinery “slow enough” to meet takt time.
Custom equipment dedicated to cell. No unused features. Appropriate size and speed. Maintained by operators. Kanban system in place between cells and monument operations.
0 D.5 OPERATORS VERSATILITY & FLEXIBILITY
Operators work on one station each day. Different pay rates for different classifications.
Operators work on some, but not all, stations in a cell. Different classifications still exist.
Operators work on most stations in a cell but not with equal skill. All are classified the same within the cell. Cross training 75% complete.
Operators work on most stations in a cell with equal skill (ability to meet all quality and takt time objectives). Cross training 100% complete. All are classified the same within the cell. A regular operator
rotation is established within the cell.
Operators work on all stations via a regularly established rotation and with equal skill. Equal classifications, equal pay rate.

E JUST-IN-TIME
0 E.1 INVENTORY LEVELS
Mass production philosophy. Items are produced to forecasted demand and stocked until sold.
Production based only on sold units, but all production occurs within the same time interval regardless of contract length and is then stocked until delivery date. Extra inventory of detail parts and
components is carried due to known fallout rate.
Production based on sold units but all production occurs on a yearly basis. Excess detail and component inventory is carried to take advantage of leveraged buys.
Production based on sold units but all production performed on a time-defined basis (i.e. every 6 months) instead of actual customer deliveries or demand. Details and components ordered as needed to
support production.
All production is performed based on customer demand. Details and components are purchased based on JIT philosophy.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 3 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
0 E.2 PULL SYSTEMS
Production schedule not related to customer demand.
Production schedule fluctuates with customer demand.
Kanban used to assist production scheduling.
Kanban used to schedule finished goods.
Kanban used to schedule finished goods and order from all suppliers.

0 E.3 LOAD LEVELING / LINE BALANCING

No standard work implemented. Work level/inventory levels vary day-by-day and operation-by-operation. Obvious imbalance between tasks.
Takt time is not known. Work level is smoother but does not match sales mix. Some work distribution occurring, but only to alleviate bottlenecks. Inventory buffers exist between tasks.
Work level is smooth and corresponds with sales on a monthly or greater basis. Standard WIP targets established. Cross training is occurring developed.
Work level is smooth and corresponds with sales on a weekly basis. Standard WIP quantities in place. Cross training is occurring and work balance being developed.
The lines are leveled to meet daily demand. WIP is standardized and controlled. Worker cross-training is complete. Work balancing utilized throughout the factory.
0 E.4 SINGLE-PIECE FLOW / SMALL LOT SIZES
Manufacturing in large batches. No standard WIP or takt calculations. Long changeover times.
Smaller batch sizes are implemented. No standard WIP or takt calculations. Jidoka not utilized. Set-up reduction efforts not in place.
Small lot sizing utilized. Standard WIP is known and takt time controls the process rhythm. No stockpile of parts between operations other than standard WIP. Set-up reduction program established.
Batch sizes are approaching one. Production is cellular in arrangement and paced to takt. Standard WIP is known and used to control flow. Jidoka is operational and kanbans are utilized. Set-ups are
approaching SMED.
One-piece flow is established via kanban and takt time. Jidoka is established. Changeovers occur within minutes.
0 E.5 SET-UP REDUCTION
Set-up times are not measured. Internal and external set-up is not separated.
Set-up time consistently measured. Some internal and external separation is occurring.
Set-up reduction program established. Internal and external set-up is occurring as a rule.
Set-up times are <10 minutes.
Changeover is accomplished within one Takt time.
0 E.6 TAKT-TIME
Production runs without regard to takt time. Takt time not calculated.
Takt time established. Production is not relative to Takt time.
Takt time established. Production runs to within Takt time +20% max..
Production runs within Takt time +10% max. and visually displays production data within Takt time.
Production runs equal to takt time and visually displays production data within Takt time.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 4 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
F PROCESS CONTROL
0 F.1 MISTAKE PROOFING / ZERO DEFECT CONTROL
No poka yoke or zero defect processes implemented.
Some training and awareness in poka yoke.
Some equipment has poka yoke devices installed with operators trained on functionality and corrective action.
Some poka yoke devices installed and charted/verified with defined improvement targets. Stop process for out-of-control conditions on equipment implemented.
Poka yoke devices are widespread, installed and charted/verified with defined improvement targets. Stop process for out of control conditions implemented with devices through equipment control.
0 F.2 SIX SIGMA
Six Sigma philosophy has not been adopted.
Six Sigma awareness underway and at least one successful project has been completed. No formal program in place
Six Sigma philosophy adopted. Black Belt(s) have been identified and trained. Project identification is random; systematic approach for project identification has not been adopted.
Six Sigma performance is part of the company’s vision. Formal, systematic program is in place. Projects are strategically identified, adopted, and aligned with company performance metrics and goals.
Six Sigma philosophy is culturally established. Variation reduction is an established performance metric. A defect rate of 3.4 parts-per-million has been attained.
0 F.3 SELF-VERIFICATION
Out of station inspection is the norm.
Some self-verification occurring at specific steps but is later verified by inspectors.
Certified operator or similar program in place. Self-verification by certified operators is not re-checked at a later time.
Self-verification occurring in at least 50% of operations.
100% self-verification at applicable processes. Exceptions may be required ATP testing, vibration testing, environmental testing, etc.

0 F.4 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS / 5 WHY's

Root cause analysis not performed. Company fixes the symptoms and not the cause.
Rudimentary root cause analysis performed at the first level (first detectable fix).
Advanced root cause analysis performed on recurring issues. 5 Whys used only on issues defined as systemic. “One-time” or non-recurring problems are not investigated.
Root cause analysis performed on every issue to at least the first level. 5 Whys used on any repetitive issue (3 or more occurrences).
Complete root cause analysis, including 5 Whys, performed on all abnormalities.
0 F.5 TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE - TPM
Maintenance performed when equipment/machinery breaks down.
Maintenance performed by maintenance personnel at regular pre-determined intervals. All relevant maintenance history is collected for \future use.
Preventive maintenance system implemented with operator involvement. All breakdowns are posted and root cause of problem identified and posted.
Daily orweekly Preventive Maintenance performed by operators. Status is posted along with solutions to breakdowns. Operators involved with design review and actual implementation of corrective
actions. Many equipment modifications have been made to improve equipment reliability and maintainability.
Status prompts operator to automatically perform maintenance. Operator involved with new equipment design review and selection. Operators take ownership of their equipment, performing at least 50%
of maintenance task. Maintenance “specialists” get involved only on complex and major maintenance work.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 5 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
G STANDARD WORK
0 G.1 STANDARD WORK DEFINED
Some documented procedures.
All procedures documented.
All procedures/forms documented and posted.
Product flow exactly matches all documented/posted procedures/forms. Standard WIP achieved.
All quality samples documented and posted in proper locations throughout factory. Process exactly matches product flow, standard WIP, and documented/posted procedures/forms. Standard work
combination sheets posted for each operator. Standard work layout posted.
0 G.2 CYCLE TIME
Cycle times not known and/or not standardized. Cycle times erratic and are operator dependent.
Cycle times known and work is being performed toward establishing standard work and cycle times. Cycle times are not coordinated to takt time needs.
Cycle times are known and standardized but are not coordinated to takt time. Cross-training occurring to assist in maintaining standard cycle times.
Cycle times standardized. Takt time known but cycle time variation alternatively creates excess WIP and/or starved downstream operations.
Cycle times standardized and are equal or slightly less than takt time.
0 G.3 WORK SEQUENCE
Work sequence not defined. Order of work is left up to the individual operator.
Work sequence is defined but operations are routinely performed out of order.
Work sequence defined and routinely followed. Detailed work instructions must be read to understand sequence.
Work sequence defined and followed by all operators.
Work sequence is defined and the process (cell) is designed around the sequence.

0 G.4 STANDARD WORK-IN-PROCESS

Standard work-in-process not defined.
Standard work-in-process is defined but not being followed.
Standard work-in-process is defined and generally followed but excess production is allowed to prevent idle workers or to build ahead.
Standard work-in-process is defined and followed. Excess production may be allowed only after supervisory approval.
Standard work-in-process is defined and no exceptions are allowed.

H CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
0 H.1 KAIZEN
Concept of change and improvement is not embraced.
Change is usually performed through radical transformation, such as reengineering. If/when a kaizen is conducted, only management or supervision is involved.
Some Kaizen activity performed. Kaizen is not yet recognized as the continuous improvement tool. Area workers are a part of the kaizen events.
Kaizen is ingrained and is the continuous improvement tool of choice. Kaizens are performed on problem areas. Workers from outside the area are included in Kaizen events.
Kaizen events are performed routinely as part of a continuous improvement plan. Kaizen events are performed throughout the enterprise and are not necessarily “problem-area” driven.

File : 398983759.xls
Page 6 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0
0 H.2 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
Neither goals nor performance results are published at floor level.
Goals and performance measurements are available for all employees but are not usable for floor level evaluation and improvement. Goals are established at the company level but not yet identified at the
lower levels.
Goals and performance results are published and posted for all employees to see. Departmental level goals and performance results are tracked and published.
Goals and performance measures are presented at the factory, department, and individual level. Measurements are used to identify areas for improvement. Regular review of performance to goals is
established at departmental level.
Goals and performance measurements, while driven by company level goals, are work area specific, visibly posted, and are used to constantly improve the processes. Regular reviews of performance to
goals are established at the lowest levels. Rewards and compensation are tied to performance measures.

RELATIVE SCORE ANALYSIS

0,0 - 0,5 No Lean Commitment. Adoption necessary to remain competitive.
0,6 - 1,5 Beginning the Lean journey. Must accelerate focus to drive change.
0.0 1,6 - 2,5
2,6 - 3,5
Change becoming visible. Leverage momentum to reduce the risk of sliding back into old habits.
Results being felt at all levels. Lean is now becoming the company culture. World-class within sight.
3,6 - 4,0 World-Class Lean Manufacturing status but…competition is not stagnant. Need to continue driving continuous improvement to maintain competitive edge.

COMMENTS - REMARKS

File : 398983759.xls
Page 7 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
LEADERSHIP
SCORE
Management Commitment

Culture

File : 398983759.xls
Date :

Infrastructure

TRANSPARENCY

Value Stream Mappinp

Visual Order - 5's Program

Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier

Visual Control

LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Design for Manufacture

Flattened Bill of Material

Miscellaneous Methods
Auditor :

PROCESS

Continuous Flow

Material Presentation

Cellulat / Mixed-Model Manufacturing

Right-Sized Equipment

Operators Flexibility

JUST-IN-TIME
Site :

Inventory Levels

Pull Systems

Page 8 of 10
Load Leveling / Line Balancing

Single-Piece Flow / Small Lot Sizes

Set-Up Reduction

Takt-Time

PROCESS CONTROL

Mistake Proofing / Zero Defect Control

Six Sigma

Self-Verification

Root Cause Analysis

Total Productive Maintenance

STANDARD WORK
Line / Cell / Process :

Standard Work Defined

Cycle Time

Work Sequence

Standard Work-In-Process

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Kaïzen

Performance Measurements

GLOBAL SCORE
0.0

Form Release : 1.02 US

Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
 Cellulat / Mixed-

Mistake Proofing
V

Mi

Stan
Load Lev

S
LEAN PROD

CONTINU
Visu

Total Pr
Man

Perfor
Fl

Single-Piece
Lean Flow Technology Scorecard
SCORE Date : Auditor : Site : Line / Cell / Process :
0.0

File : 398983759.xls
Page 9 of 10 Form Release : 1.02 US
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier
SCORE
LEAN FLOW TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SCORECARD
Date : Site : Auditor :

File : 398983759.xls
Page 10 of 10 Form Release : Calc
Copyright © 2004-2008 - Philippe Magnier